Scraps

Not really. I figured if you wanted to know the answer to that question you would have read the resolution to answer your question. So either I missed something when I read it you your to lazy to read it yourself. Actually I think he made himself clear enough. Either your to dense to figure it out or you're pulling a Mickey.

What part or resolution 181 did that? Sounds like a Mickey argument to me.

The point with respect to Native Americans is poorly applied. Native Americans have full rights of citizenship and more. Palestinians do not have such rights in Israel.

There is only one factual matter that can be addressed from your post. Zinni got his first star under Bush 41, well before the 1992 elections for that matter. As for why Zinni supported Bush in 2000, I'll take your statement for what it is, speculation on the part of a fierce partisan. As far as Peter Pace goes, I'm going to keep in mind that he still is in uniform and is thus not able to criticize the civilian leadership. Howeve I will note that he advanced further under Clinton than Zinni did, so does that make him a Clinton general?

Great. Now if you could just get that into the Constitution, I might agree with you. As it stands, it is just one mans opinion.

Except that my answer was based on something called the CONSTITUTION. Now if you could find something in that document that stated that retired generals should just fade away ...

Depends on what office the politician holds and whether or not Congress has authorized it.

So its okay to be political if a bunch of politicians ask you?

So George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower should have just faded away?

After they've retired?

So how do you explain Anthony Zinni? Appointed to Cent Com under Clinton. Served as a special envoy to the Mid East under both Clinton and Bush. Formally supported Bush in 2000. Refused to support Kerry. Is Zinni a Clinton General or a Bush General? How do you classify Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste? He was offered a 3rd star under Bush and decided to retire instead. Then there is Joseph P. Hoar, who was appointed head of Cent Com by Bush 41, but has been an outspoken critic of Rumsfeld and Bush 43. What about Tommy Franks? He was promoted to head Central Command under Clinton but formally endorsed Bush. By your logic, he is a Clinton general? I really don't know enough about John Riggs or Paul Eaton to form an informed opinion. I doubt you do either. Quite frankly I think your analysis is extremely superficial on this matter. The military tends to be a right wing organization. I don't think there are many "Clinton guys" out there. Some of these Generals have taken career hits for speaking their minds. Zinni was essentially fired by Bush and labeled as anti-Semitic by a right wing columnist. Batiste gave up a sure 3rd star. Other than Clark, I don't see how these generals stand to gain by criticizing Rumsfeld. Most flag officers I've seen retire go on to lucrative offers from defense contractors. They are wanted by the contractors, in part, because of their contacts in the military establishment. Speaking out against that establishment will most likely make them undesireable to the contractors since they risk being shunned by the military fraternity. Whistle blowers are reviled by big business. Furthermore, by criticizing the command of the war in Iraq, these generals can seriously undermine morale of the troops. Do you really think they are willing to undermine troop morale because they are "Clinton generals"? I'm skeptical. In fact, it is because of the potential to undermine morale that they are likely to keep their mouths shut. For the most part I see these generals as people who were young officers in Vietnam, saw the devastating toll that war took on the military, rebuilt it, and don't want to see it happen again. History is repeating itself and they know it. There is a reason why the Powell Doctrine was developed. There is a reason why Zinni and Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor for Bush 41, publically came out against the Iraq war before it started. Schwarzkopf and Powell were real late to come on board. Playing the role of good soldiers?

So do you have a low opinion of Presidents Washington, Grant and Eisenhower?

How do you define "Clinton General"? How do you define "Bush General"?

I'm not sure what the big deal is. Almost every position on this team is a need. If you take the best player available, regardless of position, it is almost guaranteed to fill a need.

Finger nails, clothes, combing through her hair to find other peoples hair. From one report I heard, the swabbed every part of her they could to gather evidence. Using a condom hardly prevents hair, saliva or skin from being transfered to some part of the body. Not only did they not find any DNA evidence, the reports I've heard stated they didn't find any evidence of lubricants. It certainly appears that the prosecutor has gone way out on a limb and doesn't know how to back away.

Apparently you think it is incumbent on me to answer all of your questions while you don't answer any of mine. Hypocrite. Did it ever occur to you that things would not have gone this way if you had bothered to answer the questions I asked?

Just what I expected from you. You knew your position was hypocritical so you avoided conversation.

Do you not see the difference between a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, or the start of the Civil War and what could have been the culmination of the war with Al Qaeda? The points you make above are more analogous to 9-11 than to Tora Bora or any other post 9-11-2001 situation in Afghanistan.

Maybe if you would explain what you meant by this like I aked you to We could get past this. Seems like you spend a lot of energy not answering anything.

That would have required the geniuses to eat a serious amount of crow by turning around and adopting notions that they labeled "wildly off the mark". So what we have is what happens when inmates are in charge of the asylum.

My first impression is that this article is over the top misanthropic. Given the fanciful notions of some inside this administration with respect to Iraq, i.e. that we would be welcomed as liberators, that the turnover would be quick and rebuilding would be cheap, this line from the article does give me some pause. That said, here is a more sober article that explains to some extent why such weapons might be considered and that such an attack is not a forgone conclusion. Washington Post Article

Are you really that thick? BiB's statement is that Bush can not be blamed. Where did I accept that his argument that Bush can not be blamed? You claimed I accepted his rational.

Its really not amazing. There simply hasn't been enough of Kim to distract average male mind from the incredible story line and gaping holes.

Hey, your the one that mentioned BiB Sparkey.

Its pretty clear from the article that the primary targets of this campaign were Iraqis, to drive a wedge between Iraqis and foreign jihadists. I'd imagine a secondary target was the broader muslim world, for the same purpose. The idea tht Zaqawi's role in the insurgency has been overstated has been out there for a couple of years now. What is the problem with villifying a man who cuts the heads off of living people?